Deep-ultraviolet quantum interference metrology with ultrashort laser pulses

Science

Volumn 307, Issue 5708, 2005, Pages 400-403

  Witte, Stefan ^a   Zinkstok, Roel Th ^a   Ubachs, Wim ^a   Hogervorst, Wim ^a   Eikema, Kjeld S E ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ISOTOPES; LIGHT AMPLIFIERS; PHOTONS; SPECTROSCOPIC ANALYSIS; ULTRASHORT PULSES; X RAY ANALYSIS;

NARROW-BAND LASERS; PHASE-CONTROLLED PULSES; PRECISION SPECTROSCOPY; QUANTUM INTERFERENCE;

QUANTUM THEORY;

ISOTOPE; KRYPTON;

PHYSICS;

ACCURACY; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; ATOM; INTERFEROMETER; LASER; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; OSCILLATION; PHOTON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTUM MECHANICS; RADIOFREQUENCY; SPECTRAL SENSITIVITY; ULTRAVIOLET SPECTROSCOPY;

EID: 12344321470     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1106612     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. R. Holzwarth et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2264 (2000).
2. D. J. Jones et al., Science 288, 635 (2000).
3. Th. Udem, R. Holzwarth, T. W. Mansch, Nature 416, 233 (2002).
4. M. Niering et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5496 (2000).
5. Th. Udem et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4996 (2001).
6. M. Fischer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 230002 (2004).
7. J. P. Uzan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 403 (2003).
8. N. F. Ramsey, Phys. Rev. 76, 996 (1949).
9. A. Clairon, C. Salomon, S. Guellati, W. D. Phillips, Europhys. Lett. 16, 165 (1991).
10. M. M. Salour, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 757 (1977).
11. M. M. Salour, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 667 (1978).
12. R. Teets, J. N. Eckstein, T. W. Hänsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 760 (1977).
13. M. Bellini, A. Bartoli, T. W. Hänsch, Opt. Lett. 22, 540 (1997).
14. M. J. Snadden, A. S. Bell, E. Riis, A. I. Ferguson, Opt. Commun. 125, 70 (1996).
15. A. Baltuška et al., Nature 421, 611 (2003).
16. J. N. Eckstein, A. I. Ferguson, T. W. Hänsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 847 (1978).
17. A. Marian, M. C. Stowe, J. R. Lawall, D. Felinto, J. Ye, Science 306, 2063 (2004); published online 18 November 2004 (10.1126/science.1105660).
18. R. Zerne et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1006 (1997).
19. S. Cavalieri, R. Eramo, M. Materazzi, C. Corsi, M. Bellini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 133002 (2002).
20. K. S. E. Eikema, W. Ubachs, W. Vassen, W. Hogervorst, Phys. Rev. A 55, 1866 (1997).
21. S. D. Bergeson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3475 (1998).
22. A. Apolonski et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 740 (2000).
23. S. Witte, R. Th. Zinkstok, W. Hogervorst, K. S. E. Eikema, Appl. Phys. B 78, 5 (2004).
24. Standard amplifiers operate in saturated mode to reduce output power fluctuations and can therefore amplify only one pulse. In the present experiment, the number of pulses that can be amplified is limited to three by the EOM, which must be switched off before any backreflections from the amplifier lead to uncontrolled extra pulses. An additional Faraday isolator in the setup would lift this limitation.
25. An EOM and polarizing optics were used to project the interference patterns for two consecutive pulses simultaneously and vertically displaced from one another on a CCD camera. The relative positions on the CCD (up or down) were alternated by switching the EOM; the relative phase shift to the comb laser was then determined by looking at the phase difference in both projection situations, so as to cancel out any alignment effects.
26. The Doppler shift can in principle be reduced on a two-photon transition by measuring with colliding pulses from opposite sides. This arrangement also enhances the signal, as was seen experimentally. However, contrary to CW spectroscopy, Doppler-free signal (photons absorbed from opposite sides) and Doppler-shifted signal (two photons from one side) cannot be distinguished properly in the case of excitation with two ultrashort pulses, because the large bandwidth always contains a resonant frequency. This situation might lead to a calibration error when there is an imbalance in signal strength from opposite sides. Another aspect is that the total Doppler shift has an ambiguity due to the periodicity of the signal The difference in Doppler shift for the isotopes, which is on the order of a few hundred kHz, therefore provides a valuable initial estimate of about 25 MHz for this shift. From the measurement of the absolute positions, one can then determine the Doppler shift to be 29 MHz for each of the counterpropagating beams.
27. The energy ratio of pulses 1, 2, and 3 is 1.0:0.91:0.6. In all measurements with two pulses, the pulse energies have been kept equal to within about 5%.
28. V. Kaufman, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 98, 717 (1993).
29. F. Brandi, W. Hogervorst, W. Ubachs, J. Phys. B 35, 1071 (2002).
30. Two systematic effects dominate the determination of the resonance frequency: the phase shifts induced by the amplifier (100 to 200 mrad in the infrared), and the residual Doppler shift (2 MHz) due to possible misalignment of the counterpropagating beams. Other effects include light-shifts (0.47 ± 0.44 MHz), static field effects (≪ 100 kHz), the second-order Doppler shift (∼1 kHz), and a recoil shift (209 kHz). The phase shift due to the pulse-picker EOM is negligible (<5 mrad) when it is aligned such that it acts as a pure polarization rotator, as verified experimentally. The phase shift due to frequency doubling is negligible as well, on the order of 1 mrad in the ultraviolet, as estimated from the model of (31).
31. R. DeSalvo et al., Opt. Lett. 17, 28 (1992).
32. Supported by the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM), the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), the EU Integrated Initiative FP6 program, and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.